Should abortions be legal or not? The debate over this
question has raged for decades, pitting ‘pro-life’ (criminalize abortion)
against ‘pro-choice’ (legalize abortion) advocates. At present, it would seem
that pro-choice has the upper hand, with abortion either fully legalized or
subjected only to toothless legal restrictions (Britain, Sweden) throughout
most of the developed (and post-communist) world.
In many of these countries where abortion is legal, a
secondary debate arises: should governments pay
for these abortions with taxpayer money? This debate is particularly fiery
in the United States, where new president Donald Trump recently reinstated a
ban on federal government funding going to international organizations which
promote or provide abortions[1].
Trump and many other republican politicians have indicated that they wish to
apply the same ban domestically as well, such that the controversial family
planning organization, Planned Parenthood, which promotes and provides
abortions, would no longer receive any federal funding[2].
Pro-choice advocates were predictably outraged by Trump’s
move; suggesting that it will put the lives and health of millions of women
around the world at risk[3].
This is in keeping with the left-wing tendency to view mere ‘negative liberty’
(freedom from coercive interference) as insufficient, and to insist on securing
‘positive liberty’ (actual ability to engage in a certain action) for all with
respects to their preferred courses of action[4].
In this case, many on the left see no real difference between abortion being
formally illegal, and abortion being ‘unacceptably’ difficult to access for
women with a lack of resources. In order to realize every woman’s supposed
‘right to choose’ whether to have an abortion or not, they insist that the
government help fund abortions for low income women.
Thus, if the pro-choice advocates had their way, not only
would the pro-life crowd’s desire to criminalize abortion be frustrated, but
these same pro-life people would be forced to actively fund, as taxpayers, the
abortions which they despise. To deliver such a political double-whammy to
these poor folks seems, to me, to be unnecessarily cruel…
Does that mean that I agree with the pro-life position? No;
personally, I believe that abortion should be legal. But unlike the pro-choice
fanatics, I can understand why
pro-life advocates believe the things they do. A human fetus is, after all, a
living, human entity, and to get an abortion is to terminate the life of this
entity. But for me, this fact is not decisive. I generally have more sympathy
for the mother saddled with an unwanted child than I do for the parasitic
human-in-development that is growing inside of her. Also, unwanted children are
probably more likely to be raised poorly than wanted ones, which in turn makes
them more likely to grow up to be menaces to, or parasitic members of, society.
That said, I can certainly understand why people with a strong desire to protect
all forms of human life (especially if they believe it their religious duty to
do so), would come down on the other side of this issue.
It comes down to a question of respect. The pro-choice
advocates have won the main contest; to attempt to add insult to injury for the
pro-lifers by pushing for government funding of abortion just strikes me as
disrespectful. For controversial issues like this, where both sides have valid
points, it just creates unnecessary antagonism and polarization when one side
pushes for total victory, as the pro-choicers have done. For such issues, a
compromise is warranted, and in this case, the best compromise is for abortion
to be legal, but for governments to avoid funding it.
What of the pro-choice objection that such a compromise would
make abortion effectively inaccessible to low income women? In the U.S, an
abortion currently costs about $500 on average[5].
This is certainly not cheap, but neither is it astronomical for a procedure that
most women will rarely, if ever, have occasion to undertake. My plan for pure
cash redistribution by the government (as outlined elsewhere on this blog)
would help low income women with this (and the cost of the procedure would
probably fall significantly in a more free-market-oriented medical system). But
if pro-choice advocates are still worried, they are perfectly free to help
these women out themselves! They should just dig out their pocketbooks and make
a donation to a family-planning charity such as Planned Parenthood. If they can’t
be bothered to do this, then it is questionable how committed they really are
to the plight of low income women seeking abortions.
In sum, when it comes to abortion policy, there are three
basic positions: 1. The government discourages abortion (by making it illegal).
2. The government encourages abortion (by helping to fund it). 3. The
government neither encourages nor discourages it (by making it legal but not
funding it). Only the third position demonstrates good faith and respect for the
views of the opposing side on this controversial issue. Only acceptance of this
compromise position could possibly bridge the bitter divide between the two
sides; otherwise, all we can expect is a perpetual continuation of the war
between feuding extremists.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/30/president-trump-executive-actions-complete-list-so-far-orders/97229452/
[2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1357/defund-planned-parenthood/
[3] https://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/trump-just-slapped-an-anti-abortion-rule-on-foreign-aid?utm_term=.eoXmy0y5W1#.lrJ7VXVyW0
[4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
[5] https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2014/06/much-abortion-cost-draft-theresas/
No comments:
Post a Comment